Jay520 said:
GameOver22 said:
We do not empirically verify laws. We empirically verify the implications of laws, and we use this to infer whether a law is viable. Talking of laws as if they exist is misleading, particularly in conjunction with your argument that something cannot come from nothing. This argument is talking about physical things. I think you would admit there is a fundamental difference between a tree and a law, hence, when we talk of a law existing, we mean something fundamentally different from when we say a phsyical object exists. Your argument is treating both the existence of laws and the existence of things as if they are the same, which they are not. That is my criticism.
In other words, the fact that an object cannot exist in nothingness does not mean that a law cannot exist in nothingness.
|
True, laws are not physical entities. But would you agree that laws describe physical entities? If so, then you shouldn't you also agree that if there are no physical entities (nothing), then there are also no laws. |
No. In that case, we couldn't observe the implication of the laws. This does not mean the laws are not there.
Our observations depend on matter existing, so our justification for laws depends on their being some matter for the laws to affect. If there is not matter, we could never observe a law's effects, however, not being able to observe the implications of a law does not mean its not there.....there just isn't anything for it to affect.
Another way to put it, laws are not dependent on the physical existence of the things they explain.
